CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 décembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAF1EE20D { width:14.08pt; display:inline-block } .s644B7A40 { width:148.15pt; display:inline-block } .s845DD249 { width:220.82pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4CDF22F7 { width:158.81pt; display:inline-block } .s3F14B660 { width:206.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .s880F5553 { width:119.46pt; display:inline-block } .s117CB974 { width:116.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s29970D9 { width:40.17pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sB66A2442 { width:26.81pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   699 15.12.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Russia, Switzerland and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Summaries of the repetitive cases (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press release.     No violation of Article 3 Georgiev v. Bulgaria (application no. 47823/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 The applicant, Dian Nikolayevich Georgiev, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Pazardjik (Bulgaria).   The applicant, who was a minor at the time, was arrested on 3 July 1998 on suspicion of rape and robbery and was taken into police custody. On 6 July 1998 he was placed under investigation for aggravated rape and armed robbery and remanded in custody. He lodged an application for release, which was dismissed by Pazardjik District Court on the ground that there was a real risk of his absconding and obstructing the investigation. The court granted a second application for release on 18 August 1998, and the applicant was released on that date. He had been held at the headquarters of the Pazardjik investigating authorities between 3 July and 18 August 1998.   On 9 September 2002 the district court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained of the conditions of his detention which, he alleged, had been in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). He also alleged that his detention had constituted a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   With regard to the applicant’s conditions of detention, the European Court of Human Rights noted that it was not disputed that, for virtually the entire period, he had been held on his own in a cell measuring at least eight square metres, that he had not been allowed any exercise or other activities outside his cell and that he had not had access to natural light and only limited access to sanitary facilities.   However, the Court took the view that those conditions did not attain the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3, particularly since they had lasted a relatively short time. Accordingly, taking account of the applicant’s state of health and the length of time for which the measure had been imposed, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   The Court reiterated that it had previously found, in cases concerning the system of pre-trial detention that had existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, that investigating officers and public prosecutors could not be considered sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to order or approve pre-trial detention. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 with regard to the applicant’s right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   Furthermore, finding that Bulgarian law did not afford the applicant an enforceable right to compensation, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   5.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Karadžić v. Croatia (no. 35030/04)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Edina Karadžić, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1975 and lives in Kehl (Germany). Under German law she has sole custody of her son, N.D.K. who was born out of wedlock in 1995.   The father of the child, Ž.P., moved to Croatia in 1999 and the applicant continued living with her son in Germany. On a visit to Croatia in May 2000, Ž.P. prevented the applicant from taking their son back to Germany with her. She managed to take him back the following year on 8 September 2001. However, ten days later, Ž.P. kidnapped his son and took him back to Croatia.   In the meantime Freudenstadt District Court issued a decision confirming that Ž.P.’s decision to keep the child in Croatia had been “wrongful” within the meaning of Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). Ž.P. appealed without success.   At the applicant’s request, the Chief Federal Prosecutor contacted the Croatian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. Five months later, in October 2001, the Poreč Welfare Centre instituted proceedings for the child’s return.   On 12 May 2003 Poreč Municipal Court ordered that the child be returned to his mother but attempts to enforce the decision proved unsuccessful as the child could not be located. The court requested the local police authorities to provide information on the whereabouts of the child and his father on three occasions and imposed sanctions on Ž.P. for failing to comply with the court’s order.   In September 2004, when three police officers, a court bailiff and the applicant’s lawyer went to Ž.P.’s home, he refused to hand over the child and used force in fleeing the premises taking his son with him. He was subsequently taken into custody but managed to escape after being transferred to hospital.   At a hearing held on 2 February 2005 the court concluded the enforcement proceedings, having been informed by the applicant’s lawyer that the child had been returned to his mother. The applicant, however, submitted that she had known nothing of that hearing and that her son had not been returned to her custody.   The applicant complained about the inefficiency of the Croatian authorities and, in particular, about the prolonged failure to enforce Poreč Municipal Court’s decision of 12 May 2003 to reunite her with her son had violated her right to respect for family life. She also complained that the length of the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time. She relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court found that the national authorities had taken insufficient action to facilitate the execution of the order of the domestic court and that there were substantial periods of delay for which the Government had not produced any convincing explanation. In particular the Court noted that the police did not show the necessary diligence in locating Ž.P. and allowed him twice to escape their custody. Furthermore, the only sanction the authorities used against Ž.P. was the imposition of a fine and a detention order, neither of which appeared to have been enforced.   The Court stressed that the passage of time and change of circumstances had irreparable consequences on the relationship between a child and parent where the two lived apart and imposed an obligation on the authorities to act swiftly. The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to make adequate and effective efforts to reunite the applicant with her son.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Epple v. Germany (no. 77909/01)   Revision The applicant, Ulrich Epple, is a German national who was born in 1970 and lives in Wasserburg (Germany). In July 1997 he was arrested by police officers on the island of Lindau, where a folk festival was taking place.   By a judgment of 24 March 2005 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (b) on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s detention in police custody. It held at the time that there was no cause to rule on the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) because no claim under Article 41 had been received from the applicant.   The Court noted that, owing to an oversight on the part of the Registry, the Government’s observations had been communicated to the applicant, but the latter had not been invited to submit a claim for just satisfaction as required by the procedure. It allowed the request for revision and held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non ‑ pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Barry v. Ireland (no. 18273/04)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Dr J. Barry, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1925 and lives in Cork (Ireland). He is a medical doctor.   He was arrested on 30 October 1997, charged with sexual assault of a former patient and later charged with 237 offences of a sexual nature concerning 43 of his former female patients. He was brought to trial eight years later. Criminal proceedings are still pending   The applicant complained about the excessive duration of the criminal proceedings against him and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, there being no court in Ireland to which application could be made to complain of the excessive length of proceedings. He relied on under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted ten years and four months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law, at the time when the applicant lodged his application, for past and future delay in his criminal proceedings.   The Court held by four votes to three that the applicant should be awarded EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Trijonis v. Lithuania (no. 2333/02)   Struck out The applicant, Haroldas Trijohis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Klaipėda (Lithuania).   The applicant complained about the criminal proceedings against him which had been excessively long and about the remand measure of home arrest ordered in the context of those proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court considered that since the applicant had not replied to the Registry’s correspondence and had not made any submissions to Court since February 2004, he had lost interest in pursuing the application and found no reason to continue the examination of the case. It therefore considered that the application should be struck out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violations of Article 6 § 1 Vanyan v. Russia (no. 53203/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) The applicant, Grigoriy Arkadyevich Vanyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow.   On 3 June 1998 he was arrested and taken to Kapotnya District Police Station in Moscow where he was searched and found to be in possession of a sachet of heroin. On 2 April 1999 Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment for drugs offences. It found that on 2 June 1998 the applicant had procured two sachets of heroin and had sold one of them to OZ, who was a police informant, and had kept the other with a view to its sale. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   On 16 November 2000 the Presidium of Moscow City Court reviewed the case. The applicant and his counsel were not informed of the application for supervisory review or the hearing before the Presidium and did not attend the hearing. The Court modified the previous judgments finding that the applicant had participated in the procurement and storage of the drugs but had not intended to sell them. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. With reference to the Amnesty Act of 26   May 2000, the court ordered he be released from serving his sentence.   The applicant alleged that he had been convicted of an offence incited by the police through OZ, an individual acting on their instructions and that his case had been reviewed by the Presidium of the Moscow City Court in his absence. The Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined under Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (c) (right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance).   The Court found that the police had no prior evidence to suspect that the applicant was a drug dealer and that there was nothing to suggest that the offence would have been committed had it not been for the intervention of OZ. It therefore concluded that the police incited the offence of procuring drugs at OZ’s request and that the use of the resultant evidence in the ensuing criminal proceedings against the applicant irremediably undermined the fairness of the trial.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   The Court considered that Moscow City Court could not, if the trial were to be fair, determine the applicant’s case in the absence of the applicant and his counsel and that the proceedings therefore did not comply with the requirements of fairness. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had also been a breach of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c).       The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 370 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Hurter v. Switzerland (no. 53146/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Hans Hurter, is a Swiss national who was born in 1957 and lives in Lucerne (Switzerland). He is a lawyer and notary by profession.   In 1997 disciplinary proceedings were brought against the applicant for having, in particular, charged excessive professional fees to a client. On 2 April 1998 the Lawyers’ Supervisory Board ordered him to pay a fine of 500 Swiss francs for repeated breaches of his professional obligations. The applicant appealed against the decision and requested that a hearing be held. On 26 February 1999 the Federal Court rejected the request for a hearing and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant contended that his case had not received a public hearing before the Swiss cantonal courts.   The Court reiterated that the holding of court hearings in public constituted a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 § 1 which protected litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny and thus represented one of the means whereby confidence in the courts could be maintained. In the applicant’s case, neither the Supervisory Board nor the Federal Court had held public hearings in the context of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, despite his explicit request to that effect.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded him EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Di Cola v. Italy (no. 44897/98) Giacobbe and Others v. Italy (no. 16041/02) Scozzari and Others v. Italy (no. 67790/01) In these three cases, the applicants were the owners of land which was occupied by the administrative authorities with a view to its expropriation. In each case construction work was undertaken on the land. The applicants instituted proceedings seeking damages for the illegal occupation of their land, on the basis that there had been no formal expropriation and they had received no compensation.   The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land was in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the loss of all ability to dispose of the land in issue, taken together with the impossibility of remedying the situation, amounted to a de facto expropriation which was incompatible with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It therefore held, unanimously in each case, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court reserved the question of application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), finding that it was not ready for decision. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Zaugolnova v. Russia (no. 1144/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Nina Stefanovna Zaugolnova, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Neryungri (Russia).   On 10 April 2002 Nyuringri Town Court granted the applicant’s civil action against the Neryungri Town police department and awarded her compensation. The Neryungri Town Administration transferred the amount to the applicant’s account on 8 December 2004.   The applicant complained about the lengthy failure to enforce a final judgment in her favour. The Court considered that the complaint fell to be examined under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the judgment in question was not enforced for two years and five months, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 50 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13 Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 27347/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Lyudmila Andreyevna Kucherenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Dneprodzerzhinsk (Ukraine).   In two separate judgments dated 18 July 2000 and 4 July 2001, Zavodskoy District Court of Dneprodzerzhinsk ordered the applicant’s former employer, the Public Transportation Company “Dneprodzerzhinskgorelectrotrans”, to pay her compensation for unpaid salary. The judgments remain unenforced in part.   The applicant complained about the lengthy failure to enforce final judgments awarding her compensation, due to lack of funds of the State-owned enterprise. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (access to court), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. The Court noted that the judgments in question had not been enforced in their entirety for almost five years and three months and for four years and three months, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court further found that there was no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in question which was caused by the authorities’ failure to take the necessary legislative or budgetary measures. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court also held unanimously that the judgment debt still owed to the applicant should be paid to her, and it awarded her as well EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.